Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Quite a few people still don't get that Star Wars was based on this so I'll write it out here. I got it from a web site and there are plenty on the subject. I'll add in how it relates to SW.

ORIGIN - The hero has an unusual birth. Sometimes a virgin birth, sometimes the son of a god or royalty. His birth means that he is different from other children and is destined for greatness.

Luke: Was the son of Anakin so he was different and destined for greatness.
Anakin: Was conceived by the midi-chlorians and fullfilled a prophecy.

SEPERATION : The hero is seperated from his world. Usually parents are killed or is forced to flee his land because of his origin.

Luke: Was hidden with Owen and Beru who were later killed.
Anakin: Had to leave his mother.

CALL TO ADVENTURE : The journey begins. Through circumstance or choice, the heroe starts his quest.

Luke: Started his training and saved Leia and the rebels.
Anakin: Helped save Naboo.

JOURNEY INTO HELL: The hero is forced to enter "hell" to overcome his fears and prove his worth.

Luke: Fought Vader on Cloud City.
Anakin: ????

THE UNHEALABLE WOUND: The hero suffers a terrible wound which leaves him scared for life. Could be phsycological or physical.

Luke: Looses his hand. Learns Vader is his father.
Anakin: His mother is killed.

HERO MUST PROVE HIMSEL: The hero must succeed despite everything and triumph over adversary.

Luke: Defeating Vader.
Anakin:????

TRIUMPHANT RETURN: The hero returns to society and is adored by all.

Luke: Defeats the Empire and is hailed a hero
Anakin:????

ATONEMENT WITH FATHER: Often the hero had to avenge his father ofr make up for his mistakes.

Luke: Had to do both

APOTHEOSIS OF THE HERO: The hero is rewarded spiritualy by spending a life of bliss with other heroes.

Luke: ???
Anakin; Appearing as a ghost at the end of ROTJ.


I posted this because it helps explain where Anakin is going.

You can use this to see what will happen to Anakin right up to Triumphant return because after that it's when he goes bad.

Where did you get this?

You're amazing King Jedi!

Hmm... KJ, that version of the Hero's Journey seems to have been altered to better suit SW.

The principle still stands, of course, but I must say I never really liked the idea of the Hero's Journey; Campbell's research never quite rang true for me. It's amazingly generalised stuff.

to many ifs ors ands

But Lucas himself said taht without Campbell SW would not have been. I even saw that on film.

A few additions to your list, KJ:



JOURNEY INTO HELL: The hero is forced to enter "hell" to overcome his fears and prove his worth.

Luke: Fought Vader on Cloud City.
Anakin: BECAME VADER AND WAS BOUND IN THE SERVICE OF EVIL

THE UNHEALABLE WOUND: The hero suffers a terrible wound which leaves him scared for life. Could be phsycological or physical.

Luke: Looses his hand. Learns Vader is his father.
Anakin: His mother is killed, AND HE LOOSES PART OF HIS RIGHT ARM (SPOILER!!!! HEheheehehhheheheh)

HERO MUST PROVE HIMSEL: The hero must succeed despite everything and triumph over adversary.

Luke: Defeating Vader.
Anakin: KILLING Palpy

TRIUMPHANT RETURN: The hero returns to society and is adored by all.

Luke: Defeats the Empire and is hailed a hero
Anakin: CHUCKS PALPY DOWN THE SHUTE


The stories are similar, but Luke's the REAL hero of course.

i don' think Luke is the real hero, Luke doesn't kill Palpatine, the real villain, even without Anakin Palpatine obviously thought he was going to get into power hence the the training if Maul, although in ep4 and ep5 Luke is the hero, throughout the whole 6 eps I am sure Anakin/Vader will prove to be the real hero.

I think KJ is right..I think Luke is a hero.. It all boils down to he saved his father. He's simply a hero.

was it not more a case of the father saving the son, Vader only turned back because he saw Luke in so much pain.

Nah, without Luke Vader would have never left the Dark side...

I know it's weird that the focus isn't on Vader in this..but look at it this way, we've elevated him to the status of a god.

No, that's the good thing. The end is fairly complex really. There is not one hero. Vader could not have turned without Luke and Luke would not have survived with Vader turning.
But Luke is MY hero because he stuck to his principles all the time, despite the hard times and temptation. Vader fell for it and became horribly evil.

I left some parts out because it didn't mean anything to SW. There was about 7 or 8 more steps but I didn't have time to post them yesterday and the didn't fit the SW story anyway. Lucas just picked what parts he liked. I'll post the rest if you like as you might see things I don't.

An easier version is :

ORIGIN
SEPERATION
QUEST BEGINS
HELL

That's what happens to both Luke and Anakin but after this it's different. Luke finishes the journey whcih is-

QUEST ENDS
HERO TRIUMPHS
HERO IS REWARDED

But Anakin goes bad for a few years only to finish the journey by killing Palpatine at the end of ROTJ.

so, it is not 100% true ...
Can you still trust it than?
Just because a few steps are sw related?

It is completley 100% true. It's what SW was based on. Lucas just took the steps that he liked and that's the ones I've posted.

And now you can start with the used mythology, GL based Star Wars on A LOT of things!!

The structure of myth is the same from culture to culture..it's just a natural for a storyteller to borrow from mythology. Just because every single idea doesn't fit neatly only shows that we don't know much about myth. I bet an anthropology expert would do much better.

Well, some of the terminoligy seems different from Campbell's, KJ. Where is the Keeper of the Keys? I thought that had always been equated to the Tusken Raiders, Luke's first test.

Yes, Campbell was a big influence on GL. But I still think the man was talking cobblers. Especially the later extraploation he made of his theory when he was trying to make out that this was why people liked stories.

Proponents of Campbell spend time trying to explain why 'anomalies' like Casablanca (which breaks this apparent 'liked story' structure entirely) are popular at all and it really bugs me.

We still didn't talk about 'The Fortress' wich was ALSO a big influence!

The Hidden Fortress you mean? Well, that is another major inspiration, yes.

What's the Hidden Fortress? I am ignorant on that matter.

The Hidden Fortress is a movie made by I think Kurosawa. The movie inspired GL to make R2 and 3PO, actually, ANH has a lot of the same stuff.

Really? When was it made?

I think that was in the seventies, but I'm not sure.
Ush knows a lot of these things he will tell you

It's an old black and white Kurasawa film.

The principle is that even though the important movers and shakers in the film are the double-hard samurai people, the means via which we are shown the story is by following these two peasants who follow their Lord around. While they are not exactly the narrators, they thus become essential for the viewing of the story.

GL used the same concept for R2-D2 and C3-P0.

This is only considerd a minor step so I left it out. I said I only posted the main steps. There are other minor steps like -

HEROE'S WEAPON - The hero has a weapon that only he can use.

i.e lightsabre, force

SUPERNATURAL HELP - The hero is guided from a diety or supreme being often appearing in visions, and appearing only to the hero.

i.e Obi-Wan

I only posted the main steps.


This was a big influence on ANH but we're talking about the SW story of Anakin and then Luke.

It's still very loose stuff. Actually, I think anthropologists tend to disagree with Campbell.

That doesn't matter though. SW was influenced by it and so are many Hollwood films. I just posted it so people might see why Anakin had an unusual conception and why he couldn't take his mother with him. Lucas is following Campbells theory very closely.

Here is another film that follows the same story.

BRAVEHEART

ORIGIN: Wallace is the son of a noble man and is expected to be a leader like him.

SEPERATION: Wallaces father and brother are killed and he has to leave Scotland.

QUEST BEGINS: His wife is killed which makes him want to fight. His quest is to kick the English out of Scotland and get revenge on the King.

HELL: He is betrayed by Robert the Bruce and his army lose the battle.

HERO TRIUMPHS: He kicked the English out and his life and death inspired Robert the Bruce to continue his quest.

HERO IS REWARDED: When he is being killed he see's the spirit of his wife. Foretelling that he will join her when he dies.


Some of the most successful films all follow this path.

And we can now start with fairythales and their strtuction! They have the same structure, so ACCEPT that many movies have the same structure

That's what I said. Many movies have the same structure and that's what Joseph Campbell did. He gathered all of these stories from around the world, found the common themes and the wrote a book about it. Which inspired Lucas and many others.

That has nothing to do with it, it is a struction that most films use, even if they didn't hear of what you said.

Campbell would actually call that the point, because the stories would be subconciously coming to the same structure.

But this is where it gets stupid. When you start selectively taking bits of it and apply to to stuff like Braveheart, you get to the point where any story with a hero who overcomes obstacles is lumped into being a part of this theory, which is so much horse elbows.

As I say, the theory then gets extrapolated to ridiculous amounts, claiming that the only stories people like are ones that follow this basic structure or small variations on it.

Why can't the guy just say that people like stories where there is a hero, bad things happen, he overcomes them and wins? That's just people liking fantastical stuff. Saying it's an in-built cultural pattern is nonsense and is entirely contradicted by the facts.

KJ, I KNOW SW was heavily based upon this. But I reserve the right to voice my disagreement with Campbell in a thread about his thesis...

Look into it yourself. The reason I know about this is I did it for a project. I had to try and disprove Campbells theory. I had to read lots of myths and fairytales and what he says is right. Nobody said that the only films people like follow this pattern.


Yerrsot, because you don't understand something or have never heard of it, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

I HAVE looked into it. And what Campbell says is nonsense.

He is very selective. He on;y accepts those stories that fit his theory. He says stories that fit his theory are the only successful ones. Well, is that true? NO.

He ignores that the greatest classic stories of all time are tragedies, not hero stories. Dreamtime legends, Pyramus and Thisbe, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Romeo and Juliet, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, and even Titanic (far more popular than ANY Hero's Journey story). None of them fit his theory yet these are the basises of modern stroytelling.

To be sure, fairy tale legends are common and popular as well. But the basic thrust of his theory is entirely wrong- that the basic herop set-up is the default story and that this is what people like.

No. People like a variety of things and this is reflected throughout history. There is NO single default. The amount of exceptions you can point out make the whole idea laughable. Even today people chop and change bits of his theory to make it fit. He generalised so much as to make the whole thing worthless.

And like I say, the extrapolation of his theory just takes the piss. Have you seen peo-le trying to explain why R+J and Casablanca are popular in SPITE of Campbell's theory? It is pathetic.

Campbell was a loon and most academics do not give his theory true credit- while at the same time appreciating the research he out into it.

And I can tell you for certain- writers think very little of him indeed.

Ah, see, Propp's woprk was on folktales SPECIFICALLY. Campbell's work was far more broad.

And Propp still misses a lot of cultural influences that might have disagreed; Etruscan, Greek, Roman...

Regardless, he did find a solid link in the work he looked at, but he didn;t try and assign an anthropological reason to it

No. He realised there was a common theme in storytelling and gave examples of this to back it up. Of course not every story fits this, but he never said that. But many of the most popular stories do.


Now who is being selective? You're trying to pick holes in it by giving examples of a few films that don't match his theory. Well what a suprise! NOT EVERY STORY FOLLOWS THE SAME ROUTE.

R+J aside, the stories you mentioned are not the basis of modern storytelling. How can they be when some of them were made this century? Cambpell went WAY back. To ancient Japan, ancient Africa and Egypt, Native America and Europe. Stories that were told round camp fires or carved into walls. THIS is the basis of modern storytelling. These are the stories that have been passed down through generations. These are the stories that are still being told today in one way or another. THESE are classic stories.


Titanic more popular than SW?


Nobody said there was. He said that there was a common theme running through stories from all around the world, from all cultures and all generations. That's true. His book is called "The Hero with a Thousand Face" not "The Hero that appeared in every story ever written".
The thing that amazed him was how ancient Africans could write a story which would be very similar and follow the same steps as a story written in ancient South America. That's one of the reasons SW is so popular. The story appeals to everyone.


Well if you say he is a loon then he must be. Because of course you are much smarter than he ever was.


I don't know what writers you are talking about. Probably unsuccessful ones.

Sigh... ok, I'm going to follow this one all the way, after such a awkward rebuttal.

Point by point:

I didn;t say he said every story fitted his. I said that he said that the Hero's Journey was the default that oithers sprang from, which I massively disagree with.

And I did not give a few examples of filmns it does not fit. I gave three films, and some classics. Dreamtime Tales are Aboriginal, KJ. I think that fits your bill. Pyramus and Thisbe is the oldest traguc love story of all time. The Aeneid and the Odysse are both ancient. R+J is the most famous story ever.

You call that lot selective? Nonsense; they are a very pertinent demonstration of my point.

I was showing you the line of most popular stories of their age. And not ONE fits Campbell's theory.

Meanwhile, the whole folk tale area was grossly simplified by Campbell. Odd that he likes to ignore original version of stories like Little Red Riding Hood because they might possibly suggest that people's interest was in far more darker an area than he would like...

Ancient Japan? Are you JOKING? Most of their old stories are nothing LIKE The Hero's Journey. Likewise with China. Though a lot of them are tragic love stories. In fact, far more old tales are tragic love stories than hero stories.

Titanic IS more popular than SW, KJ. Any reasonable person knows that. It is amazingly obvious. The only film ever to break the cinema demographic.

HE DID say there was a default, and your clumsy sarcasm aside I repeat again that I did not say that he thought EVERY story was exactly like that. But he did identify his story as the basis for all storytelling, and that is just oure nonsense.

And I can say he is a loon. Plenty of others do. And why do you assume I cannot be smarter than him? Did you meet him? I may be. I judge him by what he has produced, and it is cobblers. In any case, there is no need to get personal.

Ok, Tom Clancy, Jean le Carrie, Len Deighton, Bernard Cornwell and Isaac Asimov all dismissed Campbell's theories. I am pretty sure I heard that Kubrick had no patience for them either. I could name a whole load of other writers as well, but those are som,e of the very famous ones. I DO know my trade, KJ.

Campbell's theories were NOT wisely accepted! GL is a big fan of his, and fair enough, but the literary establishment as a whole is NOT and nothing you say will change that.

And I note you do nothing to disavow the way his theories have been extended into nonsensical travesties like as I say, trying to explain why things like Casablanca or It's A Wonderful Life are populkar in defiancew of his theory; you watch Campbell proponents squirm and make complex arguments trying to explain that anomaly when the simple asnwer is that there IS no anomaly, no dfeault stroy structure that attracts people and no need to explain 'exceptions'

Camopbell also had a habit of being factually wrong. As an example, his analysis of Hindu literature and storytelling is just plain erroneous.

Campbell made many relevant and pertinent points. But the base of his thesis is on exceedingly rocky ground, to say the least. And I repeat again, he is not given much credence.

Anyway. it would be tiresome to carry this on, especially when Campbell's relevant merits as a mythogrpaher have already been discussed by many books and other review facilities in the past. I think the guy talked nonsense. Plenty agree with me. Others don't- GL is one. You have to understand Campbell's theory to see the roots of Star Wars, which I do, but it is still nonsense.

Meanwhile, here is a quote from an academic who an put it better than I can:

"...but I've done more reading, and spoken to real PEOPLE, and have noticed that Campbell has a tendency to focus on obscure myths that the actual practitioners of the religious systems he studies might not even recognize. His synthesis relies upon this idea that there are common threads between the myth-systems of diverse cultures -- which is probably true, as we're all subject to certain experiences in common, death, birth, illness, pain, joy -- but he exaggerates the effect by picking and choosing the most like stories from a huge field, thus *demonstrating* that there are certain common story patterns that are almost hard-wired into our brains the way a Chomskyan would say that grammar is hard-wired into our brains. Sure, plenty of religions and mythologies have virgin birth stories -- but in no other does
the story play the kind of central role it does in Christianity. And so on. When you have an almost infinite field of signifiers, you can pick and choose those that best match your signifieds.


It's not as bad as Graves' presumption that all mythology can be traced back to memory tricks derived from the ritual significance of Celtic runes (I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect here, folks), but it is a bit reductionist (or deproblematizing). "

They are VERY selective. Ask someone to tell you the story of Pyramus and Thisbe and you'll probably get a blank look. Ask someone to tell you the story of Moses or King Arthur and they'll probably know it. These stories have the same themes and steps that Campbell was talking about. Why would people know Arthurs and Moses story over Pyramus and Thisbe? Because they are more popular. Why are they more popular? Because they have the heroe's journey that everyone knows and can identify with? Why can people associate with this journey? Because it's been told to them a million different ways from generation to generation.



That proves my point. The original version of that story has been lost. Why? Because people prefer the version that we know. How many people know the original version? I don't. People take what they want from a story and leave the rest behind. The tell people the story that THEY like. That's how stories evolve from generation to generation. What you're left with at the end is the basic themes which very often are the same as the ones Campbell put in his book.


No I'm not. Are you? Most Samuri stories follow Campbells heroes journey. Kurosawa is another who's films had these themes in them and many of his films are based on Japanese folk tales. Have you seen Kagemusha or the Samuri Trilogy (not Kurosawa). These have the SAME journey and are based on Japanese stories passed down over time.



And none of these stories have the heroes journey?



Wrong. You're basing this on the money it made at cinemas. I'm talking about the story. Who will care about the Titanic story in 20 years? The Star Wars story has already lasted that long. The Star Wars story has become a part of culture and storytelling. Titanic will never do that.
Even if you are talking about money then it's still wrong. The Star Wars story (4 films so far) has made more than the Titanic story.



It's just a hunch.

Quote- there is no need to get personal.
I'm not. It's just clear that we're not going to agree so I'm trying to be funny.


You're average person on the street wouldn't know who these people were. Proving again that Campbells ideas about storytelling is aimed at the general populas. Most people would know Lucas or Speilberg. You're average film fan would know Scorsese and Kurosawa. All of them have recognised Campbells work at one stage or another.


And I don't?


Who cares if people are fans of his or not? I'm not. I thought his book was really boring. You CAN overstate a case and that's what I think he did. Especially with his later books. But I still recognise that he WAS right. It's only when you put his theory against stories that you were told as a kid that you realises this. I heard a lot of stories when I was younger. But the ones that have stuck in my head are true to his theory.



Why should I? If people want to try and put every story into his plan then that's their problem. I'm not doing that. I'm saying that his theory is true to stories from EVERY culture and EVERY generation. And these are the stories that people will still be telling in 100 years time. Of course there are other stories. But not everyone can connect with a tragic love story the same as they can the heroes journey.

Everyone has expectations placed on them at birth. Certain things that your parents hope you achieve.

Everyone at some stage has to leave home and make their way in the world.

Everyone has some sort of quest.i.e career, family, fame, money, collecting SW figures etc.

Everyone is going to come up against it at some point. Ill health, death, not knowing what to do, heartbreak, rejection, feeling dissalousioned, you boss not giving you time off etc.

And that's why the heroes journey is so popular.

The quote you posted makes sense, but it's still not proving that Campbell was talking nonsense. Forget about the academics, writers and directors and look at the stories YOU know. The ones you remember and the ones that effected you. Most people say stories that have Campbells theory.

But we're not getting anywhere and I've got sore fingers from typing so plleeeeesssssseeeeee stop!

Ok, it wasn't going anywhere anyway (excpet to say that all those authors are in the top ten nost popualr ever... maybe not Isaac Asimov, but then he is the biggest seeling sci-fi guy ever...)

An interesting point to note, thouygh, is that whether Campbell was right or not, his theories have been given 'retroactive' (as it were) credence by its supporters re-inforcing this.

Star Wars is the biggest and most perfect example. Even if the Hero's Journey WASN'T something as engrained as he suggested, Star Wars has now become such a basic piece of storytelling (and is so based on his work) that these parts of Campbell's ideas ARE a very much a part of modern day culture. You cannot write a sci-fi or fantasy story without it being in some way comparied to Star Wars.

Just goes to show...

I was watching a documentry on The Shawshank Redemption last night and the writer/ director, Frank Darabont said that the Tim Robbins character was a "Joseph Campbell, mythical hero type, that came in and changed everything".

Post-Campbell hero, more like.

What does that mean?

Well, look at SR. The hero there is, in no way, a Camplbell type.

But since Campbell defined the hero idea, there have been a lot of people playing around with that idea, taking different looks at what a hero really is.

Post-Campbell heros aren't like the ones from the past. Star Wars is against the grain, really, hence its retro value.

Well Darabont himself said he was.

But what exactly did he mean by that? Andy clearly is not a traditional Campbell hero is he? So I guess he was talking more conceptually than meaning it was a direct Campbell-based tale. Hence post-Campbell.

They were talking about why SR is so popular and why Andy Dufraine(spe) was so liked and Darabont said "he's a Joseph Campbell mythical hero type". He was saying that was why the people in the film were so drawn to him.He then went on to make religious referances which I never thought of before but were quite interesting.

Yeah, there was always this religious sub-text. But as I say, he is not a traditional Campbell tye, and it;s CERTAINLY not a Campbell-type story...

I never noticed the religious connotaitions before. Like the dinner table scene where he's telling them all about hope. It's like the other inmates were his deciples.

The main image for SR was him in the position of the cross, and so on, but yes, it was very subtle stuff.